Junyan Liu v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUNYAN LIU,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-71270
Agency No. A089-302-576
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 14, 2013**
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Junyan Liu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
FILED
MAY 20 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

11-71270 2
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings, applying the
standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the Real ID Act,
Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination
based on Liu’s inconsistent testimony regarding whether family planning officials
believed his children were twins and whether having twins violated the family
planning policy, and based on an inconsistency regarding the issuance of his
household registration booklet. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1046-47. The BIA was
not compelled to accept Liu’s explanations for the inconsistencies. See Zamanov v.
Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011). We reject Liu’s contention that the
BIA improperly discounted his documents because the BIA provided “specific,
cogent reasons” to give Liu’s documents little weight. See Zahedi v. INS, 222 F.3d
1157, 1165 (9th Cir. 2000). We also reject Liu’s contention that the IJ did not
consider his wife’s letter and other documents, because the BIA considered his
wife’s letter and Liu has not overcome presumption that the BIA considered the
entire record. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006).
Accordingly, Liu’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v.
Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

-- 2 of 3 --

11-71270 3
Because Liu’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony found to be not
credible, and he does not point to any other evidence that shows it is more likely
than not he would be tortured if returned to China, his CAT claim also fails. See
id. at 1156–57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --